The literature on the effect of tax laws on minorities overwhelmingly
looks at one minority group: blacks. In this context, "'race'
means, quintessentially, African American," a manifestation of what
has been called the "black-white paradigm" or the
"black-white binary." Because race is such a complex issue, it
is easier to identify the black experience as the minority experience.
"The risk [of this narrow identification] is that non-black
minority groups, not fitting into the dominant society's idea of race in
America, become marginalized, invisible, foreign, un-American." In
the context of tax law, blacks appear the most negatively affected,
especially within the context of their economic reality. In addition,
given the de facto segregation of black and white lives, it is
understandable that a system developed almost a hundred years ago by
wealthy white men would benefit whites more than blacks. When tax and
economics are so intermingled, Asian Americans appear too well off to be
negatively impacted by the tax laws. Asian American households earn an
average annual salary of $53,635 in 2001, compared to a white
household's $46,305. But the empirical data may not always provide a
complete picture into the economic situation of Asian Americans. When
the data is examined a little closer, the factors that support a
disparate impact on blacks could also support a disparate impact on
Asian Americans. For example, Asian Americans have a very small presence
in Congress. Critical tax scholars cite lack of representation in the
legislature as one factor leading to the disparate impact of the tax
laws on blacks. In addition, Asian American men and women also suffer
discrimination similar to that suffered by blacks. Therefore, the lack
of Asian American representation and bias in the workplace could be
factors leading to a disparate impact on Asian Americans.

In the mid-1800s, Asians began to immigrate in substantial numbers to
the United States. Not long after that, taxes were used against them to
subordinate and expel them. A study of Asian American history reveals a
long legacy of racism from the white mainstream society. The lynching of
Chinese in California in the 1800s, the Japanese internment camps, and
the murder of Vincent Chin comprise only a small part of the story. In
1988, the Civil Rights Commission reported that Asian Americans still
suffer from "a variety of anti-Asian activities" and that the
subject of anti-Asian discrimination still merited serious attention.
The racism dealt with by Asian Americans, however, cannot be perfectly
analogized to the black experience. Unfortunately, the model minority
myth obscures the problems Asian Americans face in our society. As a
result, Asian Americans' needs and realities are often ignored.

This Section attempts to illuminate the Asian American experience by
first debunking the model minority myth and its misleading
characterization of Asian American economic reality. Second, the
empirical data will be examined in conjunction with distinctive Asian
American issues that are not readily apparent by simply looking at the
numbers. These two factors will present a more realistic picture of
Asian American's economic situation. Finally, this section will make
clear that that Asian Americans may suffer from a disparate tax impact
similar to and different from that experienced by blacks.

A. Debunking the Model Minority Myth (again)

The model minority myth paints a picture of Asian American economic
success. The stereotype of the model minority emerged in the 1960s. The
New York Times Magazine published a story called Success Story: Japanese
American Style. A few months later, U.S. News and World Report followed
suit with an article called Success Story of One Minority Group in the
United States. According to the article, "Still being taught in
Chinatown is the old idea that people should depend on their own
efforts--not a welfare check--in order to reach America's 'Promised
Land."'

The model minority myth is dangerous in a number of ways. First, by
assuming group success, the model minority myth masks the great
disparity amongst Asian American ethnic groups. The Civil Rights
Commission reported in 1990 that Laotians, Hmong, Cambodians and
Vietnamese have poverty rates of 67.2%, 65.5%, 46.9%, and 33.5%,
respectively. Only two groups of Asian Americans, Filipinos and
Japanese, have poverty rates below the national average, 6.2% and 4.2%,
respectively. The needs of recent Southeast Asian refugees are ignored
because they are viewed on the same footing as third- or
fourth-generation Japanese or Chinese Americans. "Thinking Asian
Americans have succeeded, government officials have sometimes denied
funding for social service programs designed to help Asian Americans
learn English and find employment." Some scholars have even argued
that accepting the model minority myth is a form of participation in the
oppression of Asian Americans.

The model minority myth also hurts other minorities. This myth's
persistence is displayed in the Census's non-reporting of Asian American
unemployment rates and median weekly income levels, making it difficult
to assess their economic position in relation to other races. This
misleadingly creates the belief that since Asian Americans have
succeeded on their own, then other minority groups such as blacks and
Latinos should be able to do it, too. Such rhetoric condones the
subordination of other groups while simultaneously creating racial
tensions between Asian Americans and other minorities. The masked
success of Asian Americans supposedly serves as proof that the social
and economic problems faced by other minority groups have nothing to do
with race. But "the reality is that many Asian Americans,
particularly recent immigrants, are neither economically well-off nor
politically empowered."

When other factors are examined, it is clear that the model minority
myth is truly a myth. First, reliance on median family income as
evidence that Asian Americans suffer no discrimination in the workforce
is misleading. In actuality, because Asian American families have more
workers per household than do white families, their median family income
is on average higher. The Civil Rights Commission notes that when family
income is adjusted for family size, the economic status of foreign-born
Japanese and Indian families equals that of native-born whites, but that
the economic status of foreign-born Chinese, Filipino, Korean and
Vietnamese families fall behind. Median family income, therefore, is not
an accurate measure of how well Asian Americans are doing. Compounding
the problem with the empirical data is the fact that Asian families are
also more likely to have non-working relatives living with the nuclear
family. "Thus, although the greater number of relatives living with
foreign-born Asian families enhances their potential working pool, the
contribution to Asian family income from this source is dominated by the
increased burden their family income must support."

In addition, average income levels of Asian Americans are skewed by
the inclusion of the income of Asians who are not Americans. Japanese
businessmen, for example, spend several years in the United States doing
business, and their upper-management salaries are added to the average
Asian American income. This increases Asian Americans' average income
and hides the economic reality of most Asian Americans.

The high academic achievement of Asian Americans is another component
of the model minority myth. A number of factors, however, explain this
"phenomenon" of Asian American academic achievement. A
University of Hawaii sociology professor Herbert Barringer found that
native-born Asian Americans make less than native-born whites, and
possibly less than foreign-born whites. The Barringer study concluded
that "'most Asian Americans are overeducated compared to whites for
the income they earn."' Wu argues such a conclusion favors white
Americans rather than Asian Americans: "Translated into practical
terms, it means that white Americans are paid more than Asian Americans
who are equally qualified." The fact that Asian Americans are
better educated yet earn less than their white American counterparts
undermines the model minority myth. In fact, the studies demonstrate
that Asian Americans are forced to overcompensate in their education,
because they receive a lower return on their educational investment.

In addition, cultural capital is a big reason for Asian American
academic achievement. A study of high achieving Asian Americans found
that 85% had fathers with graduate degrees, 71% with doctorate degrees,
and 21% had mothers with doctorate degrees. The idea that overachieving
is inherently an Asian trait is a fallacy, because the immigrants from
Asia to the United States may not necessarily be representative of all
Asians. Immigration by nature is self-selective. Except for the recent
refugees from Southeast Asia, the Asian immigrants had to be able to
afford to come to the United States, or they came to fill an occupation
that American workers could not fill. More than 50% of the professional
immigrants to the United States are Asian. "[A]lmost none of the
Chinese Americans who served on the boards of directors for Fortune 1000
companies were 'authentic bootstrappers.' Almost all of them [have] come
from well-to-do families in China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong." Thus,
when statistics lump together those who immigrate from a higher economic
status with Southeast Asian refugees into a group called "Asian
American," the emerging numbers are not representative of either
group.

Supposedly, high median household income and high education
achievement of Asian Americans supports the idea of the model minority.
However, the model minority myth overlooks the fact that more family
members usually make up and work in the Asian American household and
that Asian Americans make less than whites with the same education
level. When these various factors are taken into account, they weaken
the model minority myth and indicate that Asian Americans are not as
successful as they are perceived. Ultimately, the model minority myth
serves to "mask[] real issues of discrimination and uses Asian
Americans against other minorities." As a result, the model
minority perpetuates the social and economic subordination existing in
the United States, which induces minorities to see differences rather
than a similar tapestry of oppression.

B. Problems with Empirical Data: How the Tax System Really Affects
Asian Americans

1. Asian American wages and employment

In 2001, the Census Bureau reported that Asian American families had
a median annual income of $53,635 but that Asian American income per
household member was $24,933. This falls below the average income for
white household members, which is at $25,751. As mentioned above, these
figures may not take into account that a number of Asian American women
work for no pay in a family-owned business, or that Asian Americans
often work below their level of educational achievement. In addition,
the figure does not reflect the economic reality of many sub-groups that
fall under "Asian American." A large percentage of Southeast
Asian groups and recent immigrants live below the poverty line.

For both native and foreign born Asian Americans, the earnings of
other relatives make up a larger fraction of Asian American family
income than of white family income. In native born Chinese, Filipino,
Japanese, and Korean families, family members other than the husband
generate more than 30% of the household income. Compare this to native
born white families, where that number is 25%. In foreign born Filipino,
Vietnamese and Chinese families, 43%, 37%, and 32% of family income,
respectively, come from the combined labor income of wives, children,
and other relatives. In foreign born white families, this number is only
23%. This data indicates that more family members must work to make up
Asian American household income. Without the supplemental income of
other household members, the head of the household would not be able to
make as much as the head of a white household.

In addition, Asian Americans tend to live in areas of the country
that have higher wages and higher costs of living. The income in these
areas would be higher, such that their average family income compared to
the national average appears higher. Many scholars argue that when one
controls for geographic location, Asian American wages do not look that
much better than black or Latino wages. In California, for example,
Korean men earn 82% of the income of white men, Chinese men 68%, and
Filipino men 62%. According to the Civil Rights Commission, if Asian
Americans and whites shared the same regional distribution, the relative
average family incomes for most Asian groups would be slightly lower.
According to another study, Asian American men make 10 to 17% less than
white men and Asian American women make as much as 40% less than white
women. Therefore, a simple statistical comparison does not reflect the
economic reality of Asian Americans.

Asian Americans are also more likely than whites to be self-employed.
"Self-employed individuals with the same income as corporate
employees tend to put in longer hours, with fewer benefits and increased
risks of bankruptcy and other setbacks." Self-employed individuals
must pay for their own medical insurance while many employers offer this
benefit to their employees. They also must cover the costs of doing
business that individuals working for a company do not have to pay, such
as other insurance and self-employment taxes. The empirical data may not
take into account these expenses that a self-employed individual must
account for, since they simply report income.

In addition, the empirical data masks the fact that Asian Americans
do face workplace discrimination. In 1992, the United States Civil
Rights Commission released a report on the civil rights issues facing
Asian Americans. The report found that all Asian Americans suffered some
level of employment discrimination such as accent or language
discrimination, discrimination caused by immigration control laws, and
"artificial barriers" preventing Asian Americans from rising
to management positions. Indeed, some believe that "Asian
professionals face the worst promotional opportunities of all
groups."

Therefore, when Asian American household income is broken down, each
family member makes less than what an individual in a white household
makes. In addition, the income of the Asian household members makes up a
larger percentage of Asian American household income. Accepting the fact
that Asian Americans often make less than whites and that they do face
workplace discrimination, they face some of the same hurdles other
minorities face in achieving racial equality. These same hurdles may be
reflected in the ways Asian Americans are taxed and in the tax benefits
they receive.

2. Home ownership and family structure

Asian American home ownership is not at all near the level of white
home ownership. According to a Harvard University study, approximately
53.9% Asian Americans and "others" owned their homes in 2002,
compared to 74.7% of whites. The homeownership rate for blacks was 48.9%
and 47.4% for Latinos. Despite the relatively large disparity between
whites and the other minority groups, homeownership rates had increased
for all groups, except for Asians in 2002. In fact, the rate for Asians
held constant for the last three years while the rate for all other
races continued to steadily climb.

That other minority groups increased in their rate of homeownership
may be explained by the opportunities they receive in relation to Asian
Americans. According to an article on homeownership in Colorado, except
for Asian Americans, minority homeownership increased between 1990 and
2000. The article reports that the national mortgage lending company,
Fannie Mae, encourages minority home ownership through programs such as
continuing education for realtors on how to better serve minority home
buyers. The article also reports that the Colorado Housing and Finance
Authority, an agency offering down payment and loan assistance, is
targeting blacks and Latinos to help increase rates of homeownership in
these communities. Given the data on Asian American homeownership, it is
surprising that the agency is not targeting Asian Americans as well.

In 2000, Asian Americans houses had the highest average value,
$199,300, more than 50% above the national average. Homes owned by
whites had an average value of $123,400, blacks $80,600, and Hispanics
$105,600. As mentioned above, Asian Americans may own homes with a
higher average value because these homes are located in areas of the
country where cost of living is higher. For instance, 45% of the Asian
households are located in Hawaii or California where average housing
prices are the highest in the nation. Hawaii has the highest average
house prices of $272,700, and California has the second highest of
$211,500.

Additionally, the higher than average home values for Asian Americans
may not be a reflection of their individual ability to buy larger homes
but reflective of the fact that they have more family members
contributing to the cost of home. At the same time, the inclusion of
extended families in an Asian American household may necessitate larger
homes. Therefore, factors such as geography and family structure may
account for the high average cost of Asian American homes. In turn,
these factors demonstrate how numerically, less Asian Americans benefit
from the tax incentives available for homeowners.

Family structures informed by cultural differences may account for
why Asian Americans are treated differently by the tax system. As noted
earlier, the tax system benefits nuclear family households where one
adult works outside of the home and the other stays at home. This poses
problems when extended families live together in one household in Asian
American families, for less Asian Americans are able to take advantage
of the tax benefits allowed by the Code. For example, if two sibling
families bought a house and lived in one household with their parents,
only one of these siblings would take advantage of the home mortgage
interest deduction, property tax deduction, or the favorable treatment
of gains on that house if they were to sell it.

Another question in the inquiry is whether houses in Asian American
neighborhoods appreciate as rapidly as those in white neighborhoods.
Just because Asian American homes cost more does not mean they will
appreciate more. It is possible that due to the positive image of Asian
Americans as successful, the appreciation rate of Asian American homes
reflect more those of white homes rather than the trend we see with
black homes. This is highly unlikely, however, because Asian Americans
are perpetually seen as the foreigner.

a. The marriage penalty and marriage bonus

Both spouses of the Asian American couple are more likely to work
outside of the home, therefore making their economic reality more
comparable to black couples. As noted earlier, more Asian American women
than white women must work, because the males in their family earn such
low wages. Asian American wives are the largest contributor to family
incomes next to their husbands, and their earnings make up a larger part
of family income than in white families. This suggests that Asian
Americans may be in the same position as African Americans in suffering
the marriage penalty more often than whites.

In addition, the tax structure does not account for other family
members that the working couple may be supporting. While the couple can
claim children and some relatives as dependents, not all relatives can
qualify as dependents even if the couple's income goes toward supporting
the person. Often, Asian American households include extended family,
some of whom may be dependent household members who cannot work; but tax
benefits are still not extended for such families. Extended family may
not always fall into the tax code's definition of who a
"dependent" could be, further eliminating potential deductions
available for Asian American families.

3. Immigration

An issue affecting a large number of Asian Americans and Latinos is
immigration. Under the federal tax system, even if someone does not
qualify to be a resident or citizen under immigration laws, they can be
considered a resident for tax purposes. The federal tax law applies the
"substantial presence" test, which basically asks whether the
taxpayer has been present in the United States for 183 days in the tax
year. If the answer is yes, the taxpayer must file a 1040, just as a
citizen or resident immigrant would. This "resident" for tax
purposes does not enjoy any of the benefits that may come with full
citizenship or resident immigrant status but must pay taxes just the
same. Even worse, the person cannot vote, and therefore has no voice in
the democratic process.

4. Conclusions

The current scholarship in critical tax theory argues that the tax
system disparately affects blacks for several reasons. First, the tax
laws were created by a legislature that is generally wealthy, white, and
male. As a result, the created tax provisions tend to benefit those
taxpayers with these characteristics over those who do not. Second, due
to the wage disparities between blacks and whites, the former are less
often able to take advantage of the tax incentives favoring those who
make more money and have more savings.

This Comment delineated several reasons for the disparate tax effects
on Asian Americans: 1) Very few Asian Americans make up the legislature.
Therefore, for the same reason that tax laws benefit underrepresented
blacks less than whites, these same tax laws also benefit Asian
Americans less. 2) While the empirical data appears to indicate that
Asian Americans are economically well off, in reality, there still
exists a wage disparity between Asian Americans and whites. Related is
the fact that Asian Americans suffer from workplace discrimination. Both
factors translate into less favorable tax treatment for Asian Americans.
3) Asian American families form households that differ from their white
counterparts, resulting in less available tax benefits for Asian
Americans.

Same level:

Child Level:

Parent Level:

Units:

Always Under Construction!

Copyright @ 1997, 2008.
Vernellia R. RandallAll Rights Reserved.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
section 107, some material on this website is provided for comment,
background information, research and/or educational purposes only,
without permission from the copyright owner(s), under the "fair use"
provisions of the federal copyright laws. These materials may not be
distributed for other purposes without permission of the copyright
owner(s).

Last Updated:
Wednesday, April 25, 2012

You are visitor number
Since Sept. 11, 2001

Thanks to Derrick Bell and his pioneer work:
Race, Racism and American Law (1993).